Your Social Security and Medicare will be cut. You’ve been warned. Sunday, Feb 4 2018 

It takes only two things to keep people in chains:

The ignorance of the oppressed
and the treachery of their leaders.

================================================================================

Why are these guys laughing?

Image result for Trump and ryan

“Can you believe it? We admit we’ll cut their Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and every other social program, and they still vote for us!”

Trump’s Startling Plan to Kill Social Security in Second Term
By: Ryan Davis

The new tax plan aimed at restoring larger amounts of wealth to corporations and wealthy individuals — an estimated $1.6 trillion will be added to the national debt.

The Republican authors of the bill have been quiet on their plan to fix the deficit, but the consensus is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid “reform.”

As readers of this site know, the so-called national “debt” is not really a debt. It is no burden on the federal government or on taxpayers. It properly should be called “deposits,” for that is exactly what it is: Deposits in Treasury security accounts.

Seventy-seven years ago a total of $40 Billion was deposited in T-security accounts, and we the people were told those deposits were a “ticking time bomb.”

Today, those deposits total $15 Trillion, and that time bomb still is ticking and we still receive the same false warnings.

The purpose of those false warnings is to make you believe the federal debt is “unsustainable,” and must be cut, so that you will agree to completely unnecessary Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. cuts.

The GOP, “the party of the richest 1%” is just itching to cut benefits to the 99%. They can hardly wait.

One anonymous Republican lawmaker had a lot to say about the process of “entitlement reform.”

“Entitlement reform always takes leadership at the presidential level, and it also takes — by the way, real reform takes bipartisanship. If we’re worried about the debt in 10 years, when we get serious about entitlement reform, then I’ll know we’re serious about the debt.”

Not only is the “debt” not a debt, but “reform” isn’t reform. It’s cuts, pure and simple. But doesn’t the word “reform” sound oh, so much better?

Trump allegedly wouldn’t want to go after Social Security (or Medicare and Medicaid) until the first day of his second term – if he actually were elected a second time – because he made a very big promise that he wouldn’t. Here is the content of a tweet from Trump’s personal Twitter account on May 7, 2015:

“I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid.

Trump wants to wait to break his promise so he can keep you in the dark until the election is over.

He knows you won’t like giving up your money so the rich can get richer, but that is exactly what he wants to do: Take dollars from your pocket and put more dollars in their pockets.

“We’re going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit,” Paul Ryan said.

Now that Trump, Ryan and the rest of the GOP have voted to enrich the already rich, they suddenly have begun to “worry” about the mythical debt.

Before the vote, it was no problem at all. Now it has become a huge problem that only your money can solve (Please don’t ask the rich for any money.)

Washington Post: Today, only about 24 percent of workers at midsize and large companies have pension coverage, and that number is expected to continue to fall as older workers exit the workforce.

In place of pensions, companies and investment advisers urge employees to open retirement accounts. The basic idea is workers will manage their own retirement funds, sometimes with a little help from their employers, sometimes not.

Once they reach retirement age, those accounts are supposed to supplement whatever Social Security might pay. (Today, Social Security provides only enough for a bare-bones budget, about $14,000 a year on average.)

Trump, Ryan and the rest of the GOP feel that an annual stipend of $14,000 is too much for you and should be “reformed” either by cutting the annual payout or by starting it later.

The trouble with expecting workers to save on their own is that almost half of U.S. families have no such retirement account.

Of those who do have retirement accounts, moreover, their savings are far too scant to support a typical retirement. The median account, among workers at the median income level, is about $25,000.

According to the Government Accountability Office. “Traditional pensions have become much less common, and individuals are increasingly responsible for planning and managing their own retirement savings accounts.”

The GAO further warned that “many households are ill-equipped for this task and have little or no retirement savings.”

The GAO recommended that Congress consider creating an independent commission to study the U.S. retirement system. “If no action is taken, a retirement crisis could be looming,” it said.

Paul Ryan and his fellow Republicans already have studied the U.S. retirement system and they have concluded that you, the 99% receive too much, while the richest 1% receive too little.

Simply keep this in mind:

  1. The federal government cannot run short of its own sovereign currency, the dollar.
  2. That means, even if all federal tax collections fell to $0, the government still could pay all its bills, forever. There is no “debt crisis” or “ticking time bomb.” The so-called “debt” never will be paid by you or by your children.
  3. Not only is there no reason to reduce Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid et al, but there even is no reason to take FICA from your paycheck.

Bottom line: You have been warned. The GOP has told you exactly what they plan to do to you. You can’t claim you didn’t know.

If you still are foolish enough to vote Republican, you deserve what they will do you.

You can prevent it. Don’t cry later.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

GOP says, “Deficit spending grows the economy, so cut deficit spending.” Huh? Monday, Oct 9 2017 

Image result for escaping the prison
It takes only two things to keep people in chains:
The ignorance of the oppressed
and the treachery of their leaders.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

The GOP is telling you, “Deficit spending grows the economy, so cut deficit spending.” Huh?

No, really. That is exactly what they are saying.

And not only that, but they also are telling you, “While we’re cutting deficit spending and destroying economic growth, let’s also cut Medicare, cut Medicaid, and gut other social spending.

“And as the cherry on top of that, the Republicans want you to accept the idea, “We’re going to make more poor people pay more tax, and more rich people pay less tax.

I kid you not. This is what President Trump and the GOP are trying to sell to you, the American public. Sadly, some of the public might buy it.

‘Deficit’ no longer a dirty word for the GOP: Trump’s tax plan adds more than $2 trillion in red ink
By: Lisa Mascaro, Los Angeles Times, October 8, 2017

Not long ago, Paul D. Ryan stood before charts and graphs as the House Budget Committee chairman like a new Ross Perot, promoting an austerity plan that slashed taxes and spending, and warning of the dangers of deficits.

“The facts are very, very clear: The United States is heading toward a debt crisis,” he said then.

“We face a crushing burden of debt which will take down our economy — which will lower our living standards.”

As you who understand the realities of Monetary Sovereignty know, there is not, nor ever has been, a “debt crisis.” Nor is there a “crushing burden of debt,” and federal debt will not “take down our economy,” and it surely will not “lower our living standards.”

It is all part of the Big Lie, that federal finances are like personal finances, where debt actually can be a problem.

For the federal government and for federal taxpayers, federal debt is no problem at all.

The reasons you seldom are told:

1. Federal “debt” actually is nothing more than the total of deposits in T-security accounts, very much like bank savings accounts. The government could pay off the entire “debt” (deposits) tomorrow, simply by transferring the dollars that exist in those accounts, back to the checking accounts of the T-security holders. No new dollars or taxes needed.

Paying off the federal debt would be a simple money transfer, exactly like your bank transferring dollars from your savings account to your checking account.

2. The federal “debt” results from federal deficit spending, which in itself grows the economy, because: GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports. 

Thus, it is mathematically impossible for the economy to grow without federal deficits.

And not just deficits, but increased deficit growth leads to economic growth. The graph shows deficit growth. Even declining deficit growth leads to recessions (vertical gray bars),  and increased deficit growth cures recessions.

In fact, increased deficit growth is the method by which the federal government brings us out of recessions.

It cured the “Great Recession” of 2008, just as deficit spending for WWII cured the Great Depression.

U.S. depressions tend to come on the heels of federal surpluses.
1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001.

Now as House speaker, the Wisconsin Republican is undergoing a role reversal, championing President Trump’s tax plan, which promises massive tax cuts for corporations and to some extent individuals — and which experts say will add some $2 trillion to the nation’s red ink over the next decade.

It’s a sizable shift for Ryan, and he’s hardly the only one. The Republican majority, which swept to power just a few years ago in part by warning of then-President Obama’s run-up of debt, now plays down concern over deficits.

Economic growth must take priority, many Republicans say, and will ultimately take care of worries about red ink.

Get it? Even the GOP admits that deficit spending causes economic growth.

Let this be a lesson to the pusillanimous Democrats, who didn’t have the courage to support Bernie Sanders’s  “Medicare for All” because it would have added to the deficit.

You have to hand it to the GOP. They have the guts to push something they have campaigned against, solely to reward the rich with tax breaks.

Asked recently whether he had gone to the “dark side,” Ryan offered a reply that sounded like something a Democrat might have said to justify spending more on repairing roads and bridges or putting additional resources into schools.

“If this results in giving us a faster economic growth, that will help us reduce our debt,” he said in a CBS interview.

“You have got to have tax reform to get faster economic growth,” he added. “Faster economic growth is necessary for us to get our debt under control.”

No, a Democrat would not have said it. At least no Democrat I know. The little snowflakes would have been hiding under their desks, mumbling something about increasing taxes on the rich.

And yes, deficit spending not only will provide “faster” economic growth; deficit spending is what provides virtually all economic growth.

And again, no. You do not want to debt “under control,” if that means reducing the debt. To grow the economy, you must have deficit spending. Period.

The nation’s debt load has topped the eye-popping level of $20 trillion.

More misdirection by the debt liars. They say $20 trillion, to make it sound more terrifying. But $6 trillion of that is money the government owes itself. The right pocket owes the left pocket.

So on top of lying about the effects of federal debt, the debt liars lie about the amount of the debt.

For Trump, who routinely leveraged borrowing to expand his real estate empire and declared on the campaign trail that he loved debt, a tax plan that expands the government’s deficit may be no problem.

It actually was worse for Trump personally, because personal finances are not like federal finances. Trump could (and did) run short of dollars to service his debt (at least four times).

But the federal government never has, and indeed cannot, run short of dollars.  Never.

During a recent White House meeting, Trump boasted to lawmakers from the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee that the country’s economic growth could hit 4%, 5%, even 6% under his tax plan, which administration officials say would more than cover lost revenue and even reduce the deficit.

Think about it. Increasing the debt will increase economic growth, so decreasing the debt will decrease economic growth.  Why would anyone want that?

But, the lawmakers asked, what if growth isn’t so strong — most mainstream economists doubt it will be — what’s Plan B for making up the deficit shortfall?

What exactly is a “deficit shortfall”? Anyone?

Central to the GOP plan are tax cuts that slash the corporate rate. Some deductions would be eliminated and the standard deduction would be doubled, in hopes of simplifying the code and broadening the base of taxpayers.

The term “broadening the base of taxpayers” is GOP code for, “make more poor people pay more taxes.” That is, and always has been, the Republican goal — to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.

“Republicans spent years pretending to care about the deficit when it came to making cuts to middle-class priorities, but the minute it came to handing tax breaks to the rich, that all went out the window,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

Well, the GOP is the party of the rich, after all.  What did you expect?

GOP Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney said. “We need to have new deficits…. If we simply look at this as being deficit-neutral, you’re never going to get the type of tax reform and tax reductions that you need to get to sustain 3% economic growth.”

Read his comment carefully. Even Republican Mulvany admits that deficits (via tax reductions) are necessary for economic growth.

Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin has said growth from the tax cut would be as much as $2 trillion, enough to pay for the cuts and start paying down deficits.

It gets crazier and crazier. Mnuchin, like Mulvaney, admits that tax cuts (which create deficits) will cause economic growth, but as soon as we achieve that growth, we should eliminate the deficits that caused the growth.

Congress repeatedly has shown, even under Republican control, that it has been unable to impose the kind of draconian reductions to Medicare, Medicaid and other safety-net programs called for in Ryan’s budgets.

In other words, to eliminate the deficits that caused economic growth, we need “draconian reductions to Medicare, Medicaid, and other safety net programs.”

So, if the GOP budget succeeds, we’ll have a double disaster: Reduction in economic growth along with reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

At the same time, Republicans are under great pressure to deliver on taxes, to have something to show for their hold on Congress and the presidency.

Translation: “Pass something, no matter how stupid and damaging, to show we know how to govern.”

Does it get any more ridiculous than that?

Every year since 1940, the debt liars have referred to the debt as a “ticking time bomb.” Back in 1940, the federal debt was $40 Billion. Today, 77 years later, it is $14 Trillion — a 35,000% increase, and that so-called “time bomb” still is ticking — and the debt liars still are lying.

For how many years must a liar be wrong before the public understands that the liar is lying? Isn’t 77 years enough?

Bottom line: The GOP says, “Deficit spending grows the economy, so cut deficit spending, and while we’re at it, cut Medicare, cut Medicaid, cut other social spending, and make the poor pay more tax and the rich pay less.”

That’s the GOP plan, folks. Do you like it?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Tangled logic and reaching for excuses: Medicaid version Monday, Jul 17 2017 

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Since the Trump administration’s all-purpose excuse for everything is “Hillary, Obama, Democrats, and Fake News media,” one ought to be refreshed to see an article that tries to justify the GOP’s health care plans, without resorting to those pitiful alibis.

And yet . .

Sorry, Liberals: Protecting the Medicaid Status Quo Won’t Save Patients
The program desperately needs radical surgery
Shikha Dalmia | July 17, 2017 | Reason.com

Medicaid provides health care to 75 million Americans. It’s also a hideously expensive program that is at the center of the raging health-care debate in Washington.

It’s not Medicaid that’s expensive. It’s health care that’s expensive. Medicaid actually is less costly, in that contrary to popular wisdom, Medicaid is not funded by federal taxpayers.,

Even if all FICA collections were $0, the federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, could continue funding Medicaid, forever.

Related image

Medicaid doesn’t treat patients. It simply pays bills, as any insurance company does.

Republicans want to scale back the program, and Democrats warn that doing so will cause nothing short of mass death.

But that is not a credible—or responsible—claim.

ObamaCare extended Medicaid eligibility to able-bodied adults at up to 138 percent of the poverty level.

To do this, the federal government promised to pick up 100 percent of the tab for the first three years, and then 90 percent in perpetuity in participating states.

Republicans want to trim back Medicaid eligibility to the pre-ObamaCare days, when “only” the poor, children, the disabled, the elderly, and pregnant women qualified.

See, it’s like this. The GOP says if you are at, or 138% above, the poverty level, you’re not poor. Right? Wrong.

The official poverty level is pitifully low:

$12,060 for individuals
$16,240 for a family of 2
$20,420 for a family of 3
$24,600 for a family of 4

Try supporting a family of 4 on 24,600 a year, or even 138% that amount.

The Republican plan, assembled by millionaires means millions of poor people will not be able to afford health care insurance.

Conservatives also want to take the opportunity to fundamentally reform the program, which consumed half of most state budgets and a tenth of the federal budget even before the ObamaCare expansion.

To this end, Republicans want Uncle Sam to stop handing states on average 50 cents for every Medicaid dollar they spend and instead give them a fixed lump sum on a per-patient basis and tie its growth to general inflation.

The sole purpose is for our Monetarily Sovereign federal government to spend less and the monetarily non-sovereign states to spend more.

Those of you who understand economics immediately will see the fallacy.  A Monetarily Sovereign government never can run short of its own sovereign currency. A monetarily non-sovereign government can and does run short of money.

The federal government can afford anything. Many (most?) of the states are short of dollars.

Bottom line: The Republicans want less spent on the poor.

If Senate Republicans’ plan is enacted—a big “if” at this stage—federal Medic aid spending would drop from $4.6 trillion between 2018 and 2026 to about $3.9 trillion.

Right. There’s no magic in this. The GOP simply wants to cut benefits to the poor.  Period.

This reduction is hardly draconian.

It isn’t draconian unless you consider $700 billion to be a significant amount of money, and 22 million uninsured to be a health problem for America. 

However, given that liberals want health-care spending to go in only one direction—up—it’s hardly surprising that they’d fight this. But their claim that the cuts will kill Americans—about 208,500 over the next decade, per a Vox analysis—is pure sensationalism.

Let’s think about it.

Vox’s calculations are based on straightforward projections from a Congressional Budget Office report that estimates that scaling back ObamaCare spending would mean loss of insurance for some 22 million Americans. Vox also claims that every 830 people covered means one life saved, hence, presto, the GOP plan will mean killing 208,500 people.

The first problem with this analysis—apart from its chutzpah—is that it assumes that all insurance saves lives, even a substandard plan like Medicaid, which accounts for the vast majority of the people covered by ObamaCare. That is emphatically not the case.

According to the author, if fewer than 208,500 people die to young for lack of health care, there is no problem. We are not told how many additional deaths would be unacceptable to the Republicans.

As I have argued before, Medicaid is perhaps the civilized world’s worst program. It costs just as much as private plans—about $7,000 per patient—but produces worse outcomes, including higher mortality, than private coverage.

So given that one of ObamaCare’s dirty little secrets is that many of its Medicaid enrollees are folks kicked off their private plans due to the Medicaid expansion, the law may have actually cost—rather than saved—lives in this cohort.

This last claim goes under, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” Two reasons:

  1. Medicaid doesn’t treat anything. Medicaid pays the bills. Period. It’s just like private insurance. In both cases, doctors do the treating. So if Medicaid patients have worse outcomes, it’s because . . .
  2. They are poorer. They lead harsher, more stressful, less healthful lives.  Poor people always have had “worse medical outcomes.”

Apparently, the author want you to believe that cutting Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals somehow will improve the medical outcomes.

But what about the uninsured? Extending Medicaid to these people improved their health and diminished mortality, right? Wrong. Plenty of reputable studies suggest that this might not be the case:

A 2010 study by the University of Virginia of 893,658 patients in the university hospital found that individuals on Medicaid had the worst post-surgery survival rate of any patients, including the uninsured, after controlling for age, health status, income, and other relevant factors.

So there it is. By some unexplained miracle, being able to afford health care worsens “post-surgery survival rate.

This ridiculous nonsense is what the right wing wants you to believe.

A 2011 Journal of Heart and Lung study found that of 11,385 patients undergoing lung transplants, Medicaid patients were 8.1 percent less likely to survive than the uninsured after 10 years. They also found Medicaid insurance was a significant predictor of death within three years, after controlling for other clinical factors.

And then there is the famous 2013 Oregon study — the closest thing to a lab experiment in the real world — co-authored by ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber.

It contrasted uninsured patients who were randomly assigned to Medicaid with those who remained uninsured and found that the Medicaid patients did not have significantly better outcomes for diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and even mortality.

Stop and think about it. If you had seen a selected study that showed having health care insurance worsened survival rates, what would you think about that study?

All Medicaid does is pay bills.  It doesn’t perform operations or provide post operative treatment. So, by what twisted logic would you come to the conclusion that being able to pay your doctor and hospital bills will kill you?

Or would you rightly conclude that other factors must be involved. Would you sensibly conclude that being able to pay your bills does not lead to an early death.

The author doesn’t have that sense, or hopes you don’t.

The main evidence to support Vox’s claim that Medicaid improves mortality rates comes from Massachusetts’ experience with universal coverage.

Vox claims ObamaCare emulates Massachusetts’ system, but as the Manhattan Institute’s Oren Cass points out, that comparison doesn’t fly: In contrast to ObamaCare, Massachusetts’ private plan component accounted for about 80 percent of coverage, while Medicaid comprised 20 percent at most.

So, the solution is to reduce coverage???

And even if Medicaid’s mortality outcomes were somewhat better for the uninsured, it would still not necessarily follow that extending the program would save lives on balance—or that eliminating the program would do the reverse.

Get it?

The Republicans claim increasing the number of people who can afford to pay doctors and hospitals doesn’t improve life span, and being unable to pay doctors and hospitals doesn’t reduce lifespan.

In short, doctors and hospitals don’t help people live longer, healthier lives. Do you believe that? It’s what the right wing wants you to believe.

In a world with finite resources, one also has to consider the opportunity costs or other ways of spending that may potentially save more lives.

What are the “finite resources”?  Money? The federal government can spend infinite money; the states cannot. So illogically, the right wing wants to take some the costs from the federal government and push them onto the states.

Or are we talking about doctors and hospitals as being “finite resources”? If so, the right wing seems to be saying that these resources should be allocated only to higher income people and not “wasted” on the poor.

Indeed, a 2016 study in the journal Health Affairs found that states that spent a smaller portion of their budgets on Medicaid and Medicare than on social programs such as housing, nutrition, and even public transportation, showed “significant” gains on a myriad of health factors, including mortality, over states that did the reverse.

It may be the case that these programs improved general quality of life and lowered stress levels, thus bettering baseline health and preventing people from falling prey to life-sapping illnesses in the first place.

And what holds true for state-level spending might be doubly true for individuals spending out-of-pocket.

It absolutely is true, which in part explains why the poor die younger. And the problem is that states and individuals, being monetarily non-sovereign, are limited in what they can spend. 

The main advantage of health insurance in general and Medicaid in particular is not really to prevent death but to protect against catastrophic illnesses that wipe out patients financially—in other words, to provide a psychic comfort.

What!!? The main benefit of health insurance is to provide “psychic comfort“? That’s the “main benefit”?? Yikes!

But patients are not willing to pay for any insurance product to receive that comfort, presumably because at some point, other uses of the money — like a car fitted with state-of-the-art safety features or a more expensive home in a low-crime neighborhood—can offer an even stronger sense of security.

As if the above were not clueless enough, the author now drifts into abject delusion:

As George Mason University economist Alex Tabarrok recently pointed out, in Massachusetts, buy-in for Medicaid-like programs fell precipitously when patients were asked to bear more of their cost.

Medicaid recipients value the program at about one-fifth its actual cost, research shows.

In other words, they’d buy only after an 80 percent discount.

By liberal logic, if they declined to buy in, they’d be courting death. But the calculus of health insurance is much more complicated than their simplistic arithmetic.

Uh, excuse me, but the reason people don’t buy in is because THEY ARE POOR.

Get it, right wing? Poor people do without insurance because they struggle to pay today’s bills.

When you, don’t have enough money to put food on the table, or to pay the rent, or to afford transportation to a low-paying job, insurance seems like a luxury.

The right wing wants to cut Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals, and has invented some truly obnoxious excuses for this cruelty to the poor.

The bottom line is:

  1. Medicaid does not treat patients. It simply pays doctor and hospital bills. It is does nothing more than replace for-profit insurance companies. Thus, to claim that Medicaid “care” is better or worse than private insurance care or patient-paid care is utter nonsense.  Medicaid just issues checks.
  2. The notion that somehow, not being able to pay for health care has no effect on health, is among the more ridiculous claims by the right wing.
  3. The Federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, cannot run short of dollars. The states, being monetarily non-sovereign, can and do run short of dollars. Thus it is nonsensical to shift costs from a government that can afford everything to governments that cannot.
  4. The only, ONLY, reason the Republicans make these outrageous claims is because they have been bribed by the rich to widen the financial, educational, and opportunity Gaps between the rich and the rest. Causing poor health widens all Gaps.

The solution to America’s health care problems is a completely federally funded, comprehensive, no deductible, Medicare for All plan (See the Ten Steps to Prosperity, below.)

To claim that cuts to federal spending somehow will improve America’s health is an unacceptable combination of ignorance and cruelty, a tangled logic, reaching for excuses to enrich the rich and impoverish the rest.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

How meanness and zigzaggery jeopardize your lifestyle Thursday, Jun 15 2017 

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Here is how the meanness and zigzaggery of leadership jeopardizes your health, your income, and your lifestyle.

Introduction:

The U.S. federal government is different from state and local governments. It is different from businesses. It is different from you and me.

The federal government uniquely is Monetarily Sovereign.  It is sovereign over the U.S. dollar.

The federal government, 240 years ago, created from thin air, the laws that created the dollar from thin air. The government created as many dollars as it wished, and gave those dollars the value it wished — an arbitrary number of grams of silver.

Image result for press computer key to create money

Yes, it really is this simple for the federal government.

 

Today, the government still creates dollars, now at the press of a computer key, and still controls the value of the dollar (i.e. inflation), now by changing interest rates.

Being the absolute sovereign over the dollar, the federal government never can run short of dollars. It has no need to collect taxes. Even if all federal tax collections were $0, the federal government could continue creating and spending dollars, forever.

It also has no need for borrowing and indeed does not borrow. The so-called “debt” is not the result of borrowing, but rather the acceptance of deposits in Treasury security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank — similar to your deposits in your bank savings account.

The federal government easily could provide comprehensive, no-deductible, health care insurance coverage for you and for every other man, woman, and child in America (Medicare for All), and do it while eliminating FICA and controlling inflation.

That is how much power the federal government has over its sovereign currency, the dollar.

Why then must you see articles like this:

Medicaid cuts could be catastrophic for Idaho schools
By Julie Wootton, Times-News | Posted Jun 14th, 2017 @ 1:40pm

Beyond the typical classroom setting, some of the teenagers also receive services at school such as speech, physical or occupational therapy.

School districts pay for that mostly by using reimbursements from Medicaid, a federal program that provides health coverage to low-income Americans and people who have disabilities.

But the new federal American Health Care Act aims to cut Medicaid over 10 years by $880 billion — a total reduction of 25 percent.

Cutting Medicaid funding would place more financial responsibility on local school districts, said Sherry Bingham, special services director for the Minidoka County School District.

Cuts by the federal government in reducing the amount of Medicaid monies to already underfunded special education programs would be disastrous.

Spending by local school districts is paid for by local taxpayers. By contrast, federal spending does not cost taxpayers one cent. So, why would the politicians want to replace federal spending with local spending?

GOP Medicaid cuts to hit rural America hardest, report finds
by Phil Galewitz, Kaiser Health News @CNNMoney June 7, 2017: 3:52 PM ET

Trump Country it may be, but rural counties and small towns also make up Medicaid Country — those parts of the nation whose low-income children and families are most dependent on the federal-state health insurance program, according to a Georgetown University report released Wednesday.

Medicaid’s enrollment has swollen to more than 72 million in recent years, and the ranks of uninsured Americans has fallen to 9% in 2015 from 13% in 2013. That’s largely due to the Affordable Care Act, which allowed states to expand Medicaid eligibility with federal funds. Thirty-one states, plus the District of Columbia did so.

Those gains may be in jeopardy under the House GOP health care bill that would replace major parts of the ACA — known as Obamacare — and dramatically cut federal funding for Medicaid.

Why do the politicians, who were elected by the lower-income, rural families, now put forth plans to hurt the people who elected them?

CNNMoney Reports
Medicaid cut could put jobs in Kentucky at risk

Cuts to Medicaid have far-reaching effects, not only on your health but on your income. Medicaid payments support hundreds of thousands of healthcare-related jobs in such disparate industries as manufacturers of hospital supplies and equipment to ambulance builders to drug stores and pharmaceuticals.  And let’s not forget all the medical personnel that are paid, in part, by Medicare.

Every dollar the federal government pumps into Medicaid circulates into the economy as a job-creating stimulus dollar.

Your Money, Your America
In Texas, people with erratic incomes risk being cut off from Medicaid
by Shefali Luthra, Kaiser Health News @CNNMoney, June 15, 2017: 6:08 AM ET

To qualify for Medicaid in her home state of Texas, most children must come from families with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level. In 2017, that’s $33,948 for a family of four.

Texas also has one of the country’s strictest Medicaid verification systems: It runs regular checks on family finances after children are enrolled to make sure they continue to qualify.

Poole and her husband work in seasonal industries. She’s an hourly employee in agriculture and he’s in oil. Their hours and incomes have changed on a monthly, even weekly basis. That means their nine children, five of whom were adopted, and all of whom have complex health conditions, could lose health insurance one month but then qualify the next, even though the family’s total income for the year does not exceed the eligibility threshold.

States, being monetarily NON-sovereign,  and limited in their spending ability, look for ways to cut benefits.  The federal government has no such need.

Medicaid Cuts In Wisconsin Would Undermine Training For Adults With Disabilities
June 14, 20172:32 PM ET

And, it’s not just the cut themselves that are destroying Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) program; it’s the uncertainty.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of NC spells out how much Trump-fueled uncertainty hikes premiums
POSTED 12:31 PM, MAY 27, 2017, BY CNN WIRE

Many insurers say that the uncertainty emanating from Washington D.C. is prompting them to request even steeper hikes in premiums for 2018.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina is spelling out just how much it could cost consumers.

The insurer is requesting a rate hike of nearly 23% for next year. But it said it would have only asked for an 8.8% bump if President Trump and House Republicans agreed to fund the Obamacare cost-sharing subsidies through 2018.

The mere fact that the GOP wants and threatens to cut federal Medicaid payments is sufficient to sabotage ACA. As the Trump administration warns about cuts, these threats alone weaken the program, which the politicians then use as further “proof” the program should be cut.

It is a self-fulfilling, repeating act: Threaten, weaken, cut; threaten, weaken, cut.

And then, to add to the uncertainty, we have the zigzaggery of a confused administration:

Trump, in Zigzag, Calls House Republicans’ Health Bill ‘Mean’
By THOMAS KAPLAN, JENNIFER STEINHAUER and ROBERT PEARJUNE 13, 2017

President Trump bluntly derided a House attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act as “mean.” and in doing so, injected himself in a brewing Senate battle that his fellow Republicans had prayed he would avoid.

At a White House lunch, Mr. Trump alerted his guests that a bill passed by the House this spring — one he lauded last month as a “great plan” that was “very, very incredibly well-crafted” — was now “mean.”

“I really appreciate what you’re doing to come out with a bill that’s going to be a phenomenal bill for the people of our country: generous, kind, with heart. That’s what I’m saying. And that may be adding additional money into it.

We have written about meanness, before: The Meaning of America — now worse.

Now suddenly, the entire thrust of the GOP — to cut benefits for the poor and to save taxes for the rich — a thrust that has caused insurance companies to raise rates or to leave the plan altogether — now the “Party of the Rich” has become the “Party of the Zigzaggery” with no real direction other than to destroy everything, Obama and to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.

Of course, both parties can share the blame for spreading “the Big Lie” — the lie that federal “debt” (deposits) must be reduced, and federal deficits cut (when exactly the opposite is true).

So you, the public, will suffer from their lies and zigzaggery, if you accept without question, their dishonesty and their incompetence.

The solution is simple and straightforward: FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (Step #2 of the Ten Steps to Prosperity.)

Anything else is “mean.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: